Europe and Central Asia Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the Region, January-June 2007 wrong in refusing to compensate him. At the end of the reporting period, Lotfi Raissi was seeking to appeal the High Court’s ruling. Control orders (update to AI Index: EUR 01/001/2007) In March, the High Court held that the restrictions imposed under a control order on a dual UK/Libyan national, known for legal reasons only as “AF”, amounted to a deprivation of liberty. In particular, the court paid regard to the cumulative effects of the various restrictions, as well as the possibility that at least some of them would be renewed for a number of years. It therefore quashed the order, but left it open to the Home Secretary to impose a new, “lawful” order on “AF”. In May, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Court of Appeal) reversed a February judgment of the High Court concerning a control order imposed on a Tunisian national known for legal reasons only as “E”, holding that the cumulative effect of the order had not been such as to deprive him of his liberty. In addition, the Court of Appeal held that, while there had been, as the High Court had found, a breach of the obligation to keep the possibility of “E”’s prosecution under review, quashing the order had not been the appropriate remedy for this failure. The Court of Appeal also confirmed the finding of the High Court that the cumulative impact of the restrictions on “E”’s children did not violate or risk violating their right to be free from illtreatment. With respect to the right of “E”’s wife and children to private and family life, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the “serious interference with the rights of E’s innocent wife and children” was justified and proportionate in light of the state’s interest in preventing or restricting “E”’s “involvement in terrorismrelated activity”. “E” was one of those who had been interned without charge or trial and detained at Belmarsh in December 2001, under the now defunct Part 4 of the Amnesty International 131 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). Since March 2005 he had been made the subject of a control order. In June, there were 17 control orders in force, pursuant to powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA), eight of which were imposed on UK citizens, the remaining nine on foreign nationals. During the review period, one individual was charged with breaching his control order. Mahmoud Abu Rideh (update to AI Index: EUR 01/007/2006) In April, Mahmoud Abu Rideh won his control order appeal. The High Court quashed the control order, finding that the restrictions it imposed cumulatively amounted to a deprivation of liberty. Since March 2005 Mahmoud Abu Rideh had been subjected to: residence restrictions; a 12hour home-curfew; prohibitions on unauthorised visitors to his house or prearranged meetings elsewhere; and other restrictions. Unprecedentedly, lawyers on behalf of Mahmoud Abu Rideh and his family had also argued that the restrictions had had such a significant impact on his mental health, and that of his children, that they amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the judge concluded that neither in Mahmoud Abu Rideh’s case, nor in his children’s, did the evidence before him reach the threshold required for what had been done to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The judge also rejected the argument that the rights of Mahmoud Abu Rideh’s wife and children to private and family life and freedom of expression had been violated. In response to the judgment, the Home Secretary was reported as saying: “To protect the public, I have made a new order against Mr Rideh. However, this is inevitably weaker than the original one, which means that not only is there an increased risk of him absconding but that it is also now more difficult for the police to supervise him AI Index: EUR 01/010/2007